Harry Bodell - CLC

Experience/Background: I competed for four years in Individual Events (Primarily LP and PA with an ill-fated foray or two into interp) and Parliamentary Debate, and I competed in IPDA toward the end of my college career as it was starting to catch on in Illinois. I have since coached IE, Parli and IPDA for over ten years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University, Highland Community College, and College of Lake County. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas and can get through a round, but probably won't be able to handle speed as well as more seasoned LD judges and coaches.

General Individual Events Philosophy: In general, I want you to have fun and commit to your performance in any IE -- you only get so many chances in life to perform for a "captive" audience! As long as you have fun and use your 7-10 minutes effectively, you have a shot on my ballot. That said, my general preferences (which evolve and should not be taken as gospel) by event category are:

• Interp: In Prose, I'm looking for engaging storytelling with emotional levels, narrative flow, clear cutting, etc.; In DI, I'm looking for thoughtful character development (vocal and non-verbal characterization, emotional depth) and establishment of space/scene; In Poetry, I'm looking for powerful use of physical movement and vocal rhythm to enhance the power of the language; In POI, I am looking for a strong and thoughtful argument explored through a unique combination of perspectives of stylistic difference (and clarity in blocking, characterization, cutting, etc.); In DUO, I care most about chemistry and (depending on the lit) blocking/use of space.
• Public Address: In general, I value the content of speeches over the delivery of speeches, but both are naturally important (in other words, in a tie-breaker I will default to the content/messaging). Don't sacrifice in-the-moment connectiveness for the sake of "polish". Really communicate with the audience as opposed to "at" the audience. A few event-specific notes: I'm not crazy about hand-out's in PER/STE -- feel free to use them, but they won't impact my rank; In CA, I really value the crafting of a RQ that leaves room for generalizable rhetorical conclusions and analyses that illuminate how an artifact communicates rather than whether an artifact "checks boxes A, B and C"; In STE, don't be afraid to dive into a comedic persona -- try not to sound the same tonally as you would in an Info round :)
• Limited Prep:In both LP events, I generally value analysis above all else. A well-delivered Extemp that doesn't dig far beyond the surface will not rank as highly as a "shaky" speech with really interesting/in-depth analysis. I will always prefer the impromptu speaker who makes me think about something in a new light over the speaker who takes a very common approach to an interpretation (not every prompt is about success, growth, etc.). That isn't to say that delivery isn't important -- it is, and confidence/willingness to engage/entertain in an LP event is often the difference in a tough round.

General Debate Philosophy: While I do not believe it is realistic for any judge to be truly tabula rasa (a "blank slate" as a judge), I do my best to filter my own beliefs out of debate rounds. I try to focus only on what is on the flow to the best of my ability. That said, the flow isn't the end-all-be-all in a debate. I won't give more weight to a dropped-but-inconsequential argument than I would to a strong-yet-well-refuted argument, for example. Likewise, I'm not going to give an argument that is just blatantly untrue the same weight as a well-researched/supported argument just because it is on the flow.

In general, I judge primarily on quality of argumentation and clear impacts. I will always refer to impacts to a Weighing Mechanism (even in IPDA!) and general impact calculus unless told to judge otherwise. If you want me to weigh the round in a particular way, tell me that and justify it to me. Always hold my hand through your impacts and explain clearly why any given argument should win you the round. Don't trust me to make connections for you.

Speed/Jargon: While I can follow speed, I don't love speed -- I think that speed-and-spread tactics are detrimental to the accessibility and growth of the activity. That won't factor into my decision if you do speed, but don't assume that I'll keep up with everything. Your first priority should be to have a good debate, not to win the debate, and a good debate requires clear communication between debaters. If your opponent is going too quickly for you to follow the debate, don't be afraid to yell "clear". If your opponent yells "clear", you should try to slow down and risk a dock on speaker points if you refuse to adapt. (LD NOTE: Speed is much more likely to impact my ballot in LD where - in my opinion - it has become a massive deterrent to participation. I will vote against you if you don't adapt to clears. See LD note below)

As for jargon, I'm familiar with pretty much any debate terminology you may use and can probably follow along just fine (that goes for both Parli and IPDA -- see below).

Differences Between Parli and IPDA: While I recognize that IPDA emphasizes delivery as a tie-breaking factor (or, in some cases, a primary deciding factor), I frankly don't care how "well" you speak in debate as long as you make good arguments and I can follow them clearly (no need for extra flowery language, emotional delivery, introduction/conclusion, etc.). I don't need (or want) an attention-getter at the start of your case. I want you to get into the debating. I vote on line-by-line argumentation and impact calc in either style. I generally reject the "de-debatification" of IPDA. In my mind, debate is NOT just discussion - they're fundamentally different, and the event is not called International Public Discussion. I'm perfectly fine with procedural arguments (topicalities need to be run in IPDA sometimes!) and prefer to see stock issues established in an affirmative policy case. Don't limit the tools in your toolbox. I do recognize the trichotomy of resolution types in IPDA - there are fundamental differences to policy, fact, and value propositions no matter the debate style.

That said, please be respectful of different debating paradigms and styles. There is no one "right" approach to either Parli or IPDA. If you run into a clash of styles (ex: one debater believes you should use plan texts in policy IPDA rounds while the other debater believes that IPDA places less emphasis on resolution "types" and that a policy round should simply focus on clashing contentions), simply justify the value of your approach and its logical application toward enhancing the debate.

One more IPDA note -- because IPDA does not allow Points of Order as a protective mechanism against new arguments in the final AFF, I reserve the right to not weigh clearly new arguments made in the final AFF speech.

Cross-Talk in Parli: Flex time allows you to collaborate with your partner between speeches for a reason. Please don't talk to your partner or obnoxiously wave notes -- let your partner do the debating when they are the one speaking. Even novice debaters need to be able to learn to get through a speech without mid-speech guidance. As such, I will not flow any arguments that are directly provided vocally or via note by a partner who does not have the floor.

Questions and Cross-Ex: First of all, please be polite when asking questions. There's no need to get personal or confrontational. At the same time, please don't try to use questions to "suck time" from your opponent. More debating is better than less debating.

In Parli, please don't arbitrarily limit the number of questions that your opponent can ask ("I'll allow your first of two questions"). Simply adapt as necessary. If you honestly don't have time for a fourth question, politely say that and move on. (That said, you should generally have time for three questions if you manage time effectively). In Parli Flex Time, I prefer that questions asked focus on clarification ("can you repeat your tag for contention 1b?") rather than argumentative cross-examination questions so as to protect the right of debaters to ask questions during constructive speeches (I'm not okay with debaters saying "ask that during flex time" when a question was legally allowed to be asked during the speech). After all, flex time isn't called cross-examination because that's not the spirit of flex time -- the purpose was originally to give partners the chance to collaborate.

In IPDA, I encourage debaters to use all cross-examination time and keep questions challenging-yet-polite.

Kritiks: While I understand the value in some K arguments, I generally find most K's to be pre-constructed distractions from the actual debate at hand. In other words, I'm probably not the judge to use a K with unless you have a really good justification for doing so and can articulate that justification clearly. While I recognize the need for pre-debate argumentation (topicality, etc.) in most cases, I generally want to listen to a debate about the actual topic at hand.

Counterplans: These just don't work with me. To me, it's AFF's burden to improve the status quo, not NEG's. Doing AFF's job better than AFF does it doesn't make it NEG's ground. I'm open to seeing my first actually useful counterplan, but I haven't seen it yet in over a decade.

LD Speech Drop & Speed Note: I'll be honest - I won't follow along reading your case in the shared drop. I don't feel it is my job to read your case, it's your job to communicate the case to me. Assume I don't have your case open in front of me. On speed, if you don't adapt to efforts to call clear,you risk losing my ballot.

Roadmaps: Always on time. If you try to roadmap off time, I'll just start my timer and stop flowing once you hit your time limit.

Precision of Language: I flow and judge based on what you say, not what I think you meant to say. Be clear and accurate with language. If you say something that inadvertently supports your opponent, that's how I'll flow it!

Decorum Notes: First of all, be friendly -- let's have fun and avoid getting too heated over an educational activity. I appreciate thank you's at the start of speeches and don't consider them wastes of time. Otherwise, I value the depersonalization of argumentation. In other words, I prefer that you *do not* refer to opponents by name but rather by speaker position (AFF, NEG, PM, LO, etc.). While that may seem to some to strip debaters of their individual identities, I find that it actually keeps the debate focused on arguments and keeps us out of ad hominem territory (not to mention you would never see one lawyer refer to another lawyer by name in a courtroom trial -- they'd refer to "the defense" and "the prosecution", etc.). It also helps to prevent misgendering with inaccurate pronouns ("he/she says" assumes too much about your opponent's gender identity, "Aff/Neg says" is always acceptable). Likewise, whenever possible, please direct eye contact at the judge rather than your opponent.

Debate Pet Peeve!: Few things in debate bother me more than "You will vote X" language ("Judge, you will be voting AFF"; "Judge, you'll be voting on this point"). That just isn't a good practice inside or outside of debate (when would you ever tell a teacher/employer/etc. "you will do ____"?). It's just as easy to say, "Judge, you should vote X". While it won't impact my decision, this will impact speaker points.

Have specific questions? Ask ahead of the round. At the end of the day, just try to have a good time :)

---

Joel Chmara - CLC

I'm primarily an IE judge, so please don't speed debate and make me judge off of technicalities. I love seeing healthy clash, respect, and composure.

---

John Nash - MVCC

I typically do not judge NFA-LD or Parli, however, I do teach debate so I know the terminology. Please do not spread any information. I should be able to flow the round easily. Please speak for an audience not a debate judge. I would like any new audience member to clearly understand your flow. I prefer you do not debate word semantics.
IPDA: Just make sure this is not single person parli. Make sure you are not running a pre-prepped case. Make sure you are not using any debate lingo. This should be like two people sitting at a table over a family holiday discussing different sides of an issue. I typically judge on ethos, pathos and logos.

Salutations and previews of ideas (roadmaps) would be timed.

---

Liz Fritz - McHenry

TWs (IE) - I prefer content/trigger warnings, especially in interp, but I also know they are not required so it will not impact how I judge you in the round. To me they are important for fellow competitors the most. As a coach, I signed up to watch potentially triggering content but to limit another student's ability to participate in the activity because triggering content may exist is fairly exclusionary to me, personally. But again, not required so its not going to impact the round. Just my philosophy on why they matter.

Overarching debate philosophy - Debate is a place to explore the limits of our critical thought and on the spot thinking. I accept all arguments as long as they are well explained, which also means explaining why they matter to the round. I consider myself mostly tabula rasa, with a minor exception in IPDA (see style). I know this is long, but I think it is important.

Personal experience - I have competed in both IPDA and parli (and most IEs), and have judged LD for the past 3 years.

Types of resolution/Trichotomy of debate - This is for IPDA and Parli. There are three resolution types for a reason. They are different to allow us greater exploration within debate. Treat them differently. A fact is not a value is not a policy. Fact and value are the two that get confused the most. If you feel like you are making subjective statements rather than objective when explaining, it is likely a value, not a fact.

Resolutional Analysis - Government/affirmative has the right to define. Definitions should be clear, contextual, and able to be put in the place of the word being defined without impacting the grammar of the sentence. Weighing mechanisms should be appropriate to the type of resolution.

Opposing definitions/weighing mechanism - This is primarily for IPDA, but if you are going to propose an alternative definition or weighing mechanism, explain why you have chosen it and why it is better/preferable to Affs. In the other forms of debate there are specific procedures that have to be done.

Kritks - if you have a valuable kritik to make and can make it well, I will listen to it. They are hard to run and harder to run well, but if it is valuable and can be made, I will listen.

Topicality - I get why people dislike topicalities, but if you think you should run one, run one. I personally would rather sit through 2+ minutes of a topicality that was unnecessary (followed by additional argumentation because remember, you may not win on it) than watch a neg/opp team lose because the aff/gov set up the debate in a skewed or wrong way/had a plan that was not topical in some way/etc.

Organization - Though style between types of debate will change how the organization presents itself, being organized is super important. You do not want me (the judge) to be lost. I may miss something that could have won you the round. If your opponent does not have good organization, enforce some sort of organization on their arguments the best you can. Use the first contention, big a, etc style where appropriate.

Clash - I love direct clash. This means that if you have an entire point as the negation/opposition that can be used as a direct refutation to something the affirmative/government said, I prefer you to use that argument as direct argumentation and not use it at all as a separate argument. Tying into organization, please be incredibly clear where you are when responding to arguments. What is the point of debate if we are only constructing our own arguments and not also deconstructing our opponents?

Impacts (and Weighing Mechanism) - I will not make arguments for you. Impacts are one of the most important pieces of a fully fleshed out argument, so tell me why things matter, and most importantly why they matter in the round. Impact to the weighing mechanism especially. Thats how the round is judged. You do not want me applying my understanding of how things impact to the weighing mechanism because I may not do it the way you intended. Or, even worse, not weigh it at all because you did not tell me how it mattered.

Plans in IPDA - I prefer some sort of plan. Even if it is not as broken down as other types of debate, what you actionably plan to do is important to the debate. It allows for deeper discussion than the traditional why we should vs shouldnt that exists everywhere.

Speed - While I personally do not mind speed, talking so fast your opponent cannot keep up defeats the point of debating. If you are asked to slow down/clear is stated, I expect you to respect that request. Not doing so will impact speaker points at minimum.

Off time roadmaps/thank yous/are you ready? - Sure, roadmaps and thank yous can be off time. As for judge, are you ready?, this is possibly my most nitpicky complaint - dont ask me. I am ready. Asking your opponent(s) is fine, but dont ask me. If I am judging you in an out round and the other judges want roadmaps on time/are you readys, follow their preference.

Questions during speeches - Questions during speeches are allowed in parli. They in fact should be asked during speeches, NOT flex time (with the exception of protected time and final rebuttals, obviously). I do consider answers binding. 

Cross-X - I generally do not flow cross-ex in IPDA. To be as lay-like as possible, I also do not consider answers binding in IPDA. It is your time for clarification and seeding ideas more than anything.

Style (IPDA vs parli vs LD) - IPDA is supposed to be publicly accessible. I believe all arguments are possible to bring up even in IPDA, it is the framing of the arguments and how/what words are used that must be appropriate to the type of debate. This is very important to me for judging IPDA. It impacts how I judge the round and assign speaker points. If my friends who have never watched a debate round could not understand what is happening, you have failed to uphold the intention of IPDA debate. LD and parli are more complicated and niche in their language and not accessible to laymen generally. Do the style the type of debate is intended to be.

Jargon - I know the jargon. This does not mean you can just not explain things. Explain HOW you are perming the plan/counterplan, what precisely topicality means for the round, etc. Being as clear as possible will always be the best way to do a round over spitting jargon with no impact or value.

Hostility - I hate that I even have to put this in here. But if you are hostile in the round, towards your opponent or me, you will receive a hostile ballot. If the other side starts it, that does not mean you have to finish it. Be respectful. Be kind. Be passionate, of course, but you can be passionate and invested in the round without being mean or cruel. I promise it is possible.

How the room is set up (nationals) - It is your debate. I will adjust to wherever and whatever both sides have agreed upon. I have sat on the ground in rounds while judging. Im there to listen and evaluate what you have to say more than anything else. Just make sure it works for all competitors!

If you have any questions about my philosophy, please ask me before the round. I would rather clarify and everyone have a good debate than let a question linger.

---

Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry

Be CLEAR and ORGANIZED. Don't just throw a jumble of arguments and facts at me and expect me to sort it out. Be systematic and intentional about how you lay out your case. Talk to me like a human being. Jargon is a big minus.

---

Stefanie Epifanio - CLC

Be authentic. I don't expect competitors to conform to my personal preferences. I want to see thoughtful choices, confidence, and genuine engagement regardless of event type.

Debate: I value clash, clear impacts, and effective weighing above all else. Establish how you interpret the resolution and identify your weighing mechanism. In value rounds, I appreciate a clearly articulated value tied to the resolution. I prefer NEG constructives that integrate refutation with their own contentions. I also encourage debaters to refer to one another as AFF, NEG, or "my opponent" rather than using names. Be confident, make your arguments clear, and tell me why they matter.

Individual Events: Authenticity matters. Every performance choice should be intentional and informed by how you want the audience to think or feel. Choose material you genuinely connect with, and let that connection shape your interpretation.

Public Address: Clear organization, thoughtful content, and polished, confident delivery. I have no particular stylistic preferences.

Ultimately, I want to evaluate the choices you make, not how closely those choices match what I would have done.

---